Where can you check minimum operating system for WinAPI calls nowadays? MSDN has set all to 2000+ when they dropped 9x support.. :/

..and I'm pretty sure you could create windows before w2k.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms632679%28VS.85%29.aspx

Try to look for old SDK somewhere.

mindcooler,

Take a look at Win16, many Win32 peculiarities come from there. Old VS (.Net seems to be a break point) can give you quite an insight of what Win32 has been developed to, before later cuts.

As a matter of fact, backward compatibility has its pros and cons.

vid, Can't seem to find any old Platform SDKs, going to check out the latest one.

baldr, I don't understand your reply.

mindcooler,

It happens. Windows 3.1 SDK (especially its help files) can shed some light on the basis upon which Win32 was built (compatibility, yeah). VS.Net contains headers/MSDN snapshot at about 2001, those files can be really educational.

Things like this doesn't work anymore?

So I guess I should try to find an SDK from 1998-2000 to see which calls are 9x+?

just download windows 95 and run it under hypervisor, get all dlls and dump their exported names.

Not enough - functions is only part of the API, you need parameters as well... for some APIs, flags have been added over the years. For others, structure parms have been increased (the reason for the "dwSize" argument that lots of them have).

You'll probably want to find the last .chm release of the PlatformSDK if you need to support older versions of Windows... and good lucking finding those anywhere official >_<. There's a post either here or at asmcommunity mentioning the exact version of the last .chm version, but I couldn't find the post with "I'm a bit preoccupied with other stuff" lazy searches, and last time I went hunting Microsoft had pulled all the .chm PSDK downloads offline.

I have one of the later (but possibly not the latest) .chm PSDKs lying around in old backup archives; if not available elsewhere, I could probably put it on rapidshare or wherever; probably breaches the end-user license, but I doubt anybody would really care.

2003 SDK should still have 9x compatibility information, shouldn't it? But I agree f0dders way would be the best - those .chm PSDK docs were the best thing, back then.

Isn't the fasm shipped includes 9x only? Perhaps I can use them as a reference.

mindcooler,

Some alignment issues, and you're done.

Alignment issues?

mindcooler,

Straightforward translation of structures from C headers to fasm often disregards alignment requirements for multi-byte fields and padding of structure to meet sizeof requirements.

Yes, 2003 SDK contains all needed information about 9x and despite beeing .hxs not .chm, it works fine on my 9x machine.

OK, I'm giving 2003 a shot